standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| second reading | alternatives | an independent re-reading of a facet, recorded whether or not it agrees |
| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| contribution | contribution | what the paper claims to add |
| control | controls | an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| object of study | object_of_study | what the paper is about — the thing it investigates |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| research question | research_question | the question the paper sets itself |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
| transfer | transfers | a method or concept carried in from another field |
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 4 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| object_of_study | the spatial extent over which a single VIP interneuron disinhibits the surrounding cortical network Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | object_of_study | the paper's words | |
| research_question | how excitatory activity can propagate at all through a cortex covered by blanket inhibition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | research_question | the paper's words | |
| contribution | measures the disinhibitory reach of a single VIP cell by four independent methods and converges on about 120 microns, giving the blanket-of-inhibition problem a quantitative answer Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | contribution | the paper's words | |
| claim_type | mechanism Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | localized lateral disinhibition by VIP interneurons Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | electrophysiology Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: electrophysiology | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[0] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[1] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[2] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | the problem: SOM, PV and chandelier cells inhibit most or all pyramidal cells within their axonal arbors, which in principle should stop excitation propagating at all Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the interneuron population looks designed to block both fast and slow excitatory activity, since PV and SOM are driven by fast and slow inputs respectively Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | VIP cells inhibit nearby SOM cells, and SOM cells inhibit pyramidal cells, so activating one VIP opens a local hole in the inhibitory blanket Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | two-photon spiral scanning excites one targeted VIP and not its neighbours, which is what makes single-cell activation possible Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the disinhibitory effect requires concurrent sensory drive - there must be activity for the hole to admit Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | two possible regimes: single VIPs opening tiny patches, or a few nearby VIPs together opening larger ones Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[8] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | All recordings came from layer 2/3, so the conclusions do not necessarily hold for deeper layers. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: every conclusion in the paper, by layer: AS ALL OUR RECORDINGS WERE FROM LAYER 2/3, THEY ONLY APPLY THERE, and VIPs MAY MEDIATE QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT EFFECTS IN THE DEEPER LAYERS | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Slice measurements of spatial reach may underestimate the true extent because processes are cut. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the spatial-reach measurement: OUR IN VITRO RESULTS MAY BE UNDERESTIMATES DUE TO THE INEVITABILITY OF CUT PROCESSES IN BRAIN SLICES | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The correlational in vivo data are directionally ambiguous: nearby cells could be driving the VIPs rather than the reverse. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the direction of the in vivo effect: the results are consistent with VIPs disinhibiting nearby cortex BUT MIGHT EQUALLY ARISE FROM the nearby cells driving the VIPs | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | all recordings are from layer 2/3 and the authors say the conclusions only apply there Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the same scope as limitations[0] - layer 2/3 only | limitations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | slice results may underestimate the reach because processes are cut Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the same scope as limitations[1] - cut processes underestimate reach | limitations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the correlational results could equally reflect nearby cells driving the VIPs rather than the reverse, which is why the optogenetic experiment was needed Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. duplicate of: limitations[2] · what this limits: the same scope as limitations[2] - the correlation does not fix the direction | limitations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | during locomotion the spatial structure disappears, attributed to many more VIPs being recruited Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the spatial-structure result outside quiescence: DURING LOCOMOTION EPOCHS THE DISTANCE DEPENDENCE WAS SCRAMBLED, attributed to recruitment of many more VIPs | limitations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | six cells were inhibited rather than disinhibited and were set aside as under 1% of the sample Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the completeness of the disinhibition account: BECAUSE THE INHIBITED CELLS FORMED <1% OF ALL CELLS, WE DID NOT ANALYZE THEM FURTHER, THOUGH WE NOTE THEY MAY BE SOMS - cells that behaved oppositely were set aside | limitations[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the requirement for sensory stimulation is supported by data not shown Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the stated requirement for sensory stimulation: it WAS REQUIRED FOR SEEING THE DISINHIBITORY EFFECT OF SINGLE VIP ACTIVATION (DATA NOT SHOWN) - the condition for the central effect rests on data not in the paper | limitations[8] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | the spotlight metaphor, imported as the functional interpretation of a local disinhibitory hole Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | attractors, offered as what selectively sculpted circuits might implement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[1] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| controls | the same analysis re-run triggering on the other cells, mostly pyramidal cells, instead of the original trigger cells Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: a result that follows from which cell was chosen as the trigger rather than from the population structure · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| senses | blanket of inhibition is the specific claim that SOM, PV and chandelier cells inhibit most or all pyramidal cells within their arbors indiscriminately - it is what makes disinhibition necessary rather than merely available Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | the hole is measured four different ways - axon extent, paired connectivity, activity correlation, and single-cell optogenetics - and reported as a radius of about 120 microns, equivalently a diameter of about 240 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | spotlight of attention is used as an analogy for what a local disinhibitory hole could implement, not as a claim that it does Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | disinhibited is defined operationally as a visual response increasing by more than two standard deviations during VIP activation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| alternatives | claim_type: mechanism Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading reaching the same value. Recorded: mechanism — note: a second reading reaching the same value from a different sentence. Not applied - a person decides. | alternatives.claim_type | the tagger's words | |
| alternatives | method: two-photon optogenetic activation of individual VIP cells with C1V1 during calcium imaging in vivo, plus paired slice recordings and morphological reconstruction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value. Recorded: electrophysiology — note: a second reading, verbatim-verified, disagreeing with the value on the record. Not applied - a person decides. | alternatives.method | the tagger's words | |
| alternatives | phenomenon: lateral disinhibition in neocortex Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value. Recorded: localized lateral disinhibition by VIP interneurons — note: a second reading, verbatim-verified, disagreeing with the value on the record. Not applied - a person decides. | alternatives.phenomenon | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | extends → Kapfer et al. (2007), Silberberg and Markram (2007) and Murayama et al. (2009) on SOM-mediated frequency-dependent disynaptic inhibition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | replicates → Zhang et al. (2014) on the uniquely localized disinhibitory effect of VIP cells Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | extends → Pi et al. 2013 and Fu et al. 2014 on the VIP to SOM disinhibitory motif - both independently tagged in this corpus Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | supports → Zhang et al., who also found VIPs uniquely localised with a radius under 200 microns Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | supports → morphological reports that VIP axons are horizontally restricted Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → Fu et al. 2014 on locomotion driving VIP activity, by showing the spatial structure is lost in that state Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | VIP —causes→ SOM Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: inhibits. same edge as Fu2014 and Pi2013 - three corpus papers now carry it, from three labs | concept_edges[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | SOM —causes→ pyramidal cells Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.95 also in: SOM · pyramidal cells | concept_edges[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | VIP —operationalised-as→ spotlight of attention Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.4 — the record marks this weak · note: explicitly an analogy - may therefore enable. the low weight carries that this is offered, not shown
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but VIP interneurons 'MAY' enable propagation by generating a spotlight of attention; operationalised-as is loose and hedged. also in: VIP · spotlight of attention | concept_edges[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | SOM —operationalised-as→ lateral inhibition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. status: ATTRIBUTED, NOT MEASURED HERE: the span reports what the field holds - 'disynaptic lateral inhibition between nearby pyramidal cells' 'Quotation withheld' - with three citations (Kapfer et al. 2007; Silberberg and Markram 2007; Adesnik et al. 2012). This paper's own title is 'Opening holes in the blanket of inhibition', so the received account is the thing it goes on to complicate. · strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: RE-GROUNDS another row of this record: the old span named ONE endpoint.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but lateral inhibition 'IS THOUGHT TO work through' SOMs - a mechanism; operationalised-as is loose. also in: SOM · lateral inhibition | concept_edges[5] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | rank sum test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: rank sum test | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | paired t-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: paired t-test | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | t-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: t-test | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | correlation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: correlation | content_tags.statistics[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | z-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: z-test | content_tags.statistics[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | standard deviation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: standard deviation | content_tags.statistics[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | standard error of the mean Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: standard error of the mean | content_tags.statistics[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | rank sum test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: rank sum test | content_tags.statistics[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Z test against zero by distance bin Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Z test against zero by distance bin | content_tags.statistics[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | pairwise Pearson correlation against intersomatic distance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[9] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Optogenetically silencing SOM interneurons abolished the disynaptic inhibition between paired pyramidal cells, giving direct loss-of-function evidence that SOMs mediate lateral inhibition. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Activating VIP interneurons during the presynaptic spike train also blocked the disynaptic inhibition, showing VIPs can veto lateral inhibition. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Reconstructed VIP axons were narrower than SOM or PV axons and descended away from the pia. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | SOMs postsynaptic to a VIP were significantly closer to it than unconnected SOMs, so VIP inhibitory output is spatially restricted. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Two-photon activation of a single VIP in vivo disinhibited visual responses selectively in cells near the stimulated VIP. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The disinhibitory reach of one VIP cell measured about 120 μm in radius, i.e. a hole roughly 240 μm across. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Spontaneous VIP activity was closely tied to activity within a 50 um radius, whereas pyramidal-cell activity showed only weak distance dependence. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The spatial localization of the single-VIP effect disappeared during locomotion. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | disinhibited cells sat significantly closer to the activated VIP than cells in general, 66 against 101 microns Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the effective disinhibitory radius of a single VIP is about 120 microns Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | equivalently, VIPs open holes of about 240 microns diameter in the SOM blanket Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | connected VIP-SOM pairs sat closer together than unconnected ones, 112 against 163 microns Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 33 of 638 cells were disinhibited and 6 were inhibited by single-VIP activation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[12] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the spatial structure of the effect disappears during locomotion Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[13] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | targeting a neighbouring VIP did not excite the recorded one, establishing single-cell resolution Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[14] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | blanket of inhibition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: blanket of inhibition | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | disinhibition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: disinhibition | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | frequency-dependent disynaptic inhibition (FDDI) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | holes in the blanket of inhibition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: holes in the blanket of inhibition | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | locomotion epoch Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: locomotion epoch | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | blanket of inhibition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: blanket of inhibition | content_tags.definitions[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | disinhibited cells Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: disinhibited cells | content_tags.definitions[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | two-photon optogenetic activation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: two-photon optogenetic activation | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | distance from spiral target Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: distance from spiral target | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | change in visual responses Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: change in visual responses | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 33/638 cells — cells whose visual responses were significantly disinhibited by single-VIP activation, out of all imaged cells Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | ∼240 μm — diameter of the disinhibitory hole a VIP opens in SOM-mediated blanket inhibition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 440 ± 53 μm, 233 ± 29 μm — vertical and horizontal axon extent of VIP cells, against 756 ± 85 / 615 ± 82 μm for SOMs Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 41 ± 16 ms — onset latency of the disynaptic inhibition in the second pyramidal cell after the spike train began Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | six of eight — individual VIP cells successfully driven to spike by targeted two-photon spiral stimulation in slices Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 112 ± 25 μm vs 163 ± 14 μm, p = 0.01 — intersomatic distance of SOMs connected versus not connected to a recorded VIP Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | ∼233 μm/2 = 116 μm ... ∼112 μm — convergent anatomical and functional estimates of a single VIP's lateral reach Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | about 120 microns — effective disinhibitory RADIUS of a single VIP cell Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | about 240 microns — the same result expressed as a DIAMETER - not a discrepancy with the 120 figure Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | axons about 233/2 = 116 microns laterally; SOMs inhibited within about 112; correlations raised at 75 to 150; optogenetic disinhibition within 60 to 120 — four independent estimates of one quantity, converging on about 120 microns Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | connected 112 plus or minus 25 microns, not connected 163 plus or minus 14, p = 0.01 — VIP to SOM connection probability against distance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | disinhibited 66 plus or minus 9 microns against all cells 101 plus or minus 2, p = 0.002 — how much closer the affected cells were Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 33 disinhibited, 6 inhibited, 599 unchanged of 638 cells across 27 experiments — the classification outcome Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[12] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.